More Republican BS on SCHIP

So the House Democrats made changes that 38 Republican Representatives said they wanted in the SCHIP bill and, surprise, none of the 38 voted for the bill. The reason this time? They argued that the vote shouldn't take place because of the fires in California. What exactly the fires have to do with SCHIP since most Representatives don't represent areas of wildfire damage wasn't really spelled out, but that's their reason.

It is, of course, BS. The real reason why they don't vote for the bill is that so-called "moderate" Republicans are torn between the Republicans who vote in primaries and the voters who vote in general elections. Therefore, they want to keep saying how they support SCHIP without actually voting to support SCHIP. While such a tactic might have worked in the past, it won't work when Democrats control Congress and can set the agenda.

Another reason why they supposedly voted against the bill is that House Speaker Pelosi wouldn't delay the new vote until next week. This is from a Washington Post article on the vote:

But Republican leaders rallied their wavering troops around a new issue, whether the vote should have taken place when much of Southern California was on fire and nine House members were touring the disaster zone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) insisted she had no choice but to move forward and give the Senate a chance to send the measure to Bush next week.

"If Republicans believe in SCHIP as they say they do . . . then they won't be looking for an excuse to vote against the bill," Pelosi said.

But when Republicans suggested debating the measure yesterday and voting Monday night, she refused, infuriating even her closest Republican allies on the issue.

"I used to think they cared about the policy. Now I think they care more about the politics," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who had been working for the bill and personally appealed to Pelosi for a delay. "Everything from baptisms to bar mitzvahs, we've put off votes for here. But they won't do it for the people of California."

If the Republicans who supposedly support this bill had been able to assure Pelosi that the delay in voting would actually get more Republican votes, that would be one thing, but there was apparently no such assurance. The only benefit to Pelosi would have been that she would have had even more evidence of the Republican hypocrisy on this issue. She apparently decided that she has quite enough.

Republicans Discover "Bi-Partisanship" on Iraq

This is a story from the AP about how six so-called Republican "moderates" and five Democratic "moderates" want a bi-partisan solution to Iraq. The story was posted during the evening of September 4, 2007. We can see why Republicans want a bi-partisan solution to Iraq because they are in danger of taking even further losses next year in both the House and the Senate. We can even see why Democrats from "swing" districts are interested in such an approach. The problem, though, is that Bush isn't interested in such an approach, as this story, also from the AP, shows. He is determined to keep as many troops in Iraq until the end of his term as he can and if he ends up destroying the chances of Republicans to retake either House of Congress, that is just too bad.

Flip-flopping George Voinovich Votes With Bush on Iraq

Okay, this is what Senator George Voinovich has done over the last two weeks. First he voted against ending the Republican filibuster on the Warner-Levin Resolution which meant that the Resolution couldn't come before the Senate for a vote. Then he signed a letter to both Reid and O'Connell grousing about the Senate not conducting a debate on the Resolution. Then, today, February 17, 2007, he again votes against ending the Republican filibuster on the Resolution that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now, we imagine that he will now issue some sort of statement about how he really doesn't support Bush on Iraq or some sort of statement to make it appear like he doesn't support Bush on Iraq.

This guy is, and has been since 2001 when Bubble-Boy took office, a Bush enabler. In the 1990s, when Clinton was President and he was Governor, he railed against deficit spending by the Federal government, then helped pass Bush's reckless tax cuts that plunged America into historic deficits. He has helped Bush put right-wing zealots on the Federal bench. He refuses to take a stand against Bush's war in Iraq. On every major vote, he has supported Bush, and yet the Ohio media keeps spinning the myth of good old "moderate" George Voinovich. Well, as they say in D.C., a Republican moderate is a person who if you were drowning 15 feet off shore, would throw you 10 feet of rope. (Click on the link in this entry's title to see how the entire Senate voted.)

Is Voinovich Feeling Some Heat?

According to a blog entry by Steve Clemons over at the Talking Points Memo website operated by Josh Marshall, George Voinovich and six other so-called Republican moderates have sent a letter to the Senate Democratic and Republican leadership complaining about what they call a "stalemate" on debating a resolution on the Iraq War. (Clemons' article can be read by clicking on the link in this entry's title.)

What we find fascinating is that earlier today we learned that an email was sent out seeking people to write letters to Voinovich and complain about his vote earlier this week regarding the debate on the Warner Resolution. We are wondering if it is dawning on Republican Senators that backing George Bush and preventing the Warner Resolution from coming to a vote wasn't the brightest thing they could have done.

Previous posts on this blog that dealt with Voinovich and stopping the Republican filibuster of the Warner Resolution can be read here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-voinovich-vote-to-stop-warner-from.html and here: http://mcdac.blogspot.com/2007/02/voinovich-votes-to-stop-debate-on-bushs.html